Thinking about Social Justice: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Educators Conceptions There is not only a disconnect between theory and practice related to issues of social justice, but a backlash. No sooner have educators begun to incorporate thinking about social justice into discussions of the training and tasks of educational leaders than critics have begun the outcry against what they see as language and ideas that are ideologically dangerous and potentially thought controlling. On June 6, 2006, the Chronicle of Higher Education, a major source of news, information, and jobs for America’s college and university faculty and administrators, announced in a banner headline, “Accreditor of Education Schools Drops Controversial 'Social Justice' Standard for Teacher Candidates.” The article informed its readers that The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) had won a key endorsement in its quest for continued federal approval of its accrediting power after announcing that it would drop language relating to "social justice" from its accrediting standards for teacher-preparation programs. The response was immediate. Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars, said he was "delighted" by NCATE’s decision to strike the concept of "social justice" from its standards, calling the phrase "ideologically freighted" and "necessarily ambiguous." Similarly, Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, applauded the change as a "step in the right direction." At the same time, educators in groups such as the University Council for Educational Administration or special interest groups of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) related to social justice expressed distress and concern. In the Summer 2006 edition of City Journal, in an article published on the internet entitled, The Ed Schools’ Latest—and Worst—Humbug, Sol Stern argued that teaching for “social justice” is a cruel hoax on disadvantaged kids. In the article, Stern not only condemns several academics by name because of their advocacy of social justice, he also critiques schools in New York City in which he maintains that attempts to address systemic inequalities and issues of equity are “a frivolous waste of precious school hours, especially for poor children, who start out with a disadvantage.” He continues, “School is the only place where they are likely to obtain the academic knowledge that could make up for the educational deprivation they suffer in their homes” ( 55). It is obvious Stern believes that social justice work is opposed to academic excellence. Practitioners engaged in social justice work, however, would refute this claim, arguing vehemently that there is no dichotomy. The principal of one school critiqued by Stern for her use of Freirian pedagogy during their deliberations on the school’s mission responded that her school focuses on providing academically challenging work to students who previously did not have access to rigorous education. They read Antigone, study nuclear fission and fusion, and learn about Shields, Social Justice, CCEAM, 8/29/2006, p. 1